Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

First and foremost, the LAPD had two excellent chances to redeem themselves in regards to the Simpson relationship. After the 1989 incident, a call out went out and any police officer who responded to a call at the Simpson home was asked to come forward and give a statement, only one officer did. What made it worse for the LAPD, this officer wrote why he could recall the incident in such clarity.

From the letter Simpson wrote to Nicole, he was told and he understood that if he ever laid a hand on Nicole again, he was going to jail. The LAPD made it clear to Simpson, if there was a next time, he was going to jail.

Simpson, like many other celebrities do get treated differently by the police, however, since none of them came forward accept Fuhrman, we have no idea what the calls were about. It has just been assumed that phyical abuse took place.

Like it not, Simpson lived a different life then a majority of Americans--period. He was a tremendous athlete. He has one record that will never, ever be broken. He was the first athlete, who made the transistion from famous jock to the sports booth, to acting and being a pitchman. (Sorry, the only other famous athlete that I can remember doing a commerical was Joe Namath--and I think he shaved his legs or someting.)

Not every LAPD or LE member is a football fan. I truly believe that many sport fans, regardless of the sport have a hard time understanding how millions can be made by playing a game. How a jock who didn't even get his degree can go on to make millions more in endorsements, etc.

Why is it only OJ Simpson who is accused of leaving his roots behind because he became a millionaire? Why isn't that same accusation made against famous white people who came from nothing and worked very hard to become wealthy? It is a double standard. I remember one talking head, Nancy Grace. She loved talking about how Simpson left his 'hood. However, she also talked about how poor her family was---yet she now makes millions, why aren't people accusing her of the same thing?

Simpson was on trial for murder, why was he also on trial for his success? For his living in an exclusive neighbor hood? Why was his actions in regards to civil rights put on trial?

How do you know that he nothing in common with the blacks on the jury? Do you know their life stories?

Marcia Clark was hoping that the black female jurors hated Simpson for leaving a black wife for a white one, shouldn't that have been irrelevant as well?

"Unfortunately, there is never a moment in America when race is a total irrelevancy".

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

First and foremost, the LAPD had two excellent chances to redeem themselves in regards to the Simpson relationship. After the 1989 incident, a call out went out and any police officer who responded to a call at the Simpson home was asked to come forward and give a statement, only one officer did. What made it worse for the LAPD, this officer wrote why he could recall the incident in such clarity.

From the letter Simpson wrote to Nicole, he was told and he understood that if he ever laid a hand on Nicole again, he was going to jail. The LAPD made it clear to Simpson, if there was a next time, he was going to jail.

Simpson, like many other celebrities do get treated differently by the police, however, since none of them came forward accept Fuhrman, we have no idea what the calls were about. It has just been assumed that phyical abuse took place.

Like it not, Simpson lived a different life then a majority of Americans--period. He was a tremendous athlete. He has one record that will never, ever be broken. He was the first athlete, who made the transistion from famous jock to the sports booth, to acting and being a pitchman. (Sorry, the only other famous athlete that I can remember doing a commerical was Joe Namath--and I think he shaved his legs or someting.)

Not every LAPD or LE member is a football fan. I truly believe that many sport fans, regardless of the sport have a hard time understanding how millions can be made by playing a game. How a jock who didn't even get his degree can go on to make millions more in endorsements, etc.

Why is it only OJ Simpson who is accused of leaving his roots behind because he became a millionaire? Why isn't that same accusation made against famous white people who came from nothing and worked very hard to become wealthy? It is a double standard. I remember one talking head, Nancy Grace. She loved talking about how Simpson left his 'hood. However, she also talked about how poor her family was---yet she now makes millions, why aren't people accusing her of the same thing?

Simpson was on trial for murder, why was he also on trial for his success? For his living in an exclusive neighbor hood? Why was his actions in regards to civil rights put on trial?

How do you know that he nothing in common with the blacks on the jury? Do you know their life stories?

Marcia Clark was hoping that the black female jurors hated Simpson for leaving a black wife for a white one, shouldn't that have been irrelevant as well?

NG's situation is a little different. She did not move to an affluent predominantely Black neighborhood. Do you know of any?

[Redmama]

I am glad to hear that you are doing alright. Do you find in your work that open and honest communications with a tolerance of other people views is a aid in resolving conflict? Believe me, I was not trying to start conflict with him, as we have spend endless hours discussing a research article. I was truly interested in finding out why this particular case caused him to act in the way he did so that I could apply it in a larger context. I was extremely interested in the trial for the reason I have given, which caused me to further my education. I had placed the trial on the back burner. I did not start a blog or website showing why he was acquitted and it was only after, quite by chance, finding this board and reading some of the type of remarks that were being made that I decided I might find some open and honest discussion that may assist in changing some people's negative perception of the criminal jury, as to what they were called upon to do. I realize that no good deed goes unpunished, :).

I do find that open and honest communication works well in my work. I am known for that and many people come to me for exactly that reason. I think the difference on this board is that there has been some negative remarks between many of the posters - I'm sure I'm guilty too - so it is not as easy to do since sometimes folks posts comes across as some type of hidden agenda. I think that is why I read so long here before I actually began posting - I was trying to figure out the relationship between everybody. I finally gave up and just jumped in because it seems to change on a daily basis. At work, we are all at least trying to reach the same goal. Here, everyone is trying to get their own post in and prove that they are right. It gets a little more negative than I am used to - it is not right or wrong - just different. If you knew my personality - this was a pretty big leap for me.

[William Anthony]

I do find that open and honest communication works well in my work. I am known for that and many people come to me for exactly that reason. I think the difference on this board is that there has been some negative remarks between many of the posters - I'm sure I'm guilty too - so it is not as easy to do since sometimes folks posts comes across as some type of hidden agenda. I think that is why I read so long here before I actually began posting - I was trying to figure out the relationship between everybody. I finally gave up and just jumped in because it seems to change on a daily basis. At work, we are all at least trying to reach the same goal. Here, everyone is trying to get their own post in and prove that they are right. It gets a little more negative than I am used to - it is not right or wrong - just different. If you knew my personality - this was a pretty big leap for me.

I understand what you mean. I think there is a break down in a willingness to consider the other person's point of view. I think some may have covert agendas that come across in their posts. I don't think they stay hidden for long. I have spoken openly and honestly on my feelings about equality, race, respect and civility. I think that once people learn to communicate openly honestly and civilly they may find a point of respect in their communications. However, that may not be the case and it is just as easy to sever communications rather than to become disrespectful, imho. Just looked at this again and don't want you to think I was talking about you, because you have always been respectful, imho.

[bobaugust]

I agree that the way LE treated Simpson before the murders is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they did doing the investigation. Do you remember a line from a song called the "Back stabbers"-"they smile in your face, all the time trying to take your place."? Some and even you have posted, implying that there was something wrong with Simpson's chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice. Without trying to be judgmental, it appears that those, who make that comment are some how hostile toward his choice. What I am getting at is that same sentiment may have been shared by police, be they Black or White, who smiled in his face waiting for the opportunity stab him in his back.

I don’t believe I have ever commented on Simpson’s life style and if I did I certainly wouldn’t have implied there was anything wrong with it since it was of no particular interest to me. I believe LE did give Simpson special treatment just as they did and still do with other celebrities. Celebrities are to Los Angeles just as casinos are to Las Vegas. That reality is it’s in each city’s interest to maintain a certain image to attract visitors.
Unfortunately for justice the special treatment LE gave Simpson was used against them by Simpson’s defense.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don’t believe I have ever commented on Simpson’s life style and if I did I certainly wouldn’t have implied there was anything wrong with it since it was of no particular interest to me. I believe LE did give Simpson special treatment just as they did and still do with other celebrities. Celebrities are to Los Angeles just as casinos are to Las Vegas. That reality is it’s in each city’s interest to maintain a certain image to attract visitors.
Unfortunately for justice the special treatment LE gave Simpson was used against them by Simpson’s defense.

bobaugust

Did you forget this?

"Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

You also said that they way LE treated Simpson before the murders was irrelevant. Now, you seem to want to make it relevant. What is relevant is what they did or did not do during the investigation. I think he could have done without the special treatment of being arrested, charged with double murder and spending a year in jail before being acquitted, imho.

[limakey]

I don’t believe I have ever commented on Simpson’s life style and if I did I certainly wouldn’t have implied there was anything wrong with it since it was of no particular interest to me. I believe LE did give Simpson special treatment just as they did and still do with other celebrities. Celebrities are to Los Angeles just as casinos are to Las Vegas. That reality is it’s in each city’s interest to maintain a certain image to attract visitors.
Unfortunately for justice the special treatment LE gave Simpson was used against them by Simpson’s defense.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

OJ Simpson was the first true celebrity, in moder times, to be accused of murder. Are out talking about the same Los Angeles were a couple of Yahoos have made a fortune giving the "death tours" of where famous or infamous people who died? The Mezzaluna did more business after the murders then before the murders. Be honest Mr. August, high profile murders sell, they bring in big bucks, however, when the defendant happens to be a very famous person, well that at least triples what a "regular" high profile murder brings in.

In what way was the LAPD's special treatment of Simpson used against them? Did they purposely lie on search warrant because they wanted it thrown out? Did they make sure that blood was not seen on the socks until weeks later, only after several experts, on both sides didn't see?

What special treatment was he given where it was later used against them.

It appears to be obvious that celebrities to get special treatment. However, Mr. August, what the detectives saw at Bundy took any shine off Simpson that they may have had. We know Fuhrman hated Simpson, long before the murders. You are assuming that the four lead detectives and all the cops that reported to Bundy that night were card carrying members of OJ Nation.

[bobaugust]

Did you forget this?

"Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

You also said that they way LE treated Simpson before the murders was irrelevant. Now, you seem to want to make it relevant. What is relevant is what they did or did not do during the investigation. I think he could have done without the special treatment of being arrested, charged with double murder and spending a year in jail before being acquitted, imho.

Your comment that I have previously implied that there was something wrong with Simpson's chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice is incorrect. I have never posted anything to imply that. I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle.

I may very well have previously said that the way LE treated Simpson before the murders was irrelevant, so what? The special treatment I was referring in my last post was regarding the decision to notify Simpson of his ex wife’s death before he learned about it from the media.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your comment that I have previously implied that there was something wrong with Simpson's chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice is incorrect. I have never posted anything to imply that. I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle.

I may very well have previously said that the way LE treated Simpson before the murders was irrelevant, so what? The special treatment I was referring in my last post was regarding the decision to notify Simpson of his ex wife’s death before he learned about it from the media.

bobaugust

Your post states that the only thing that Simpson had in common with Blacks was his race and there was a disassociation because of his lifestyle. If you have ever driven a car to go on vacation, when you return, you don't forget how you got there. Certain landmarks are indelibly implanted in your mind (pun intended).

Does credibility mean anything to you? You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post. Do you think that everyone found credible LE's alleged reason for invading Simpson's home?

[martin II]

Mr. August,

OJ Simpson was the first true celebrity, in moder times, to be accused of murder. Are out talking about the same Los Angeles were a couple of Yahoos have made a fortune giving the "death tours" of where famous or infamous people who died? The Mezzaluna did more business after the murders then before the murders. Be honest Mr. August, high profile murders sell, they bring in big bucks, however, when the defendant happens to be a very famous person, well that at least triples what a "regular" high profile murder brings in.

In what way was the LAPD's special treatment of Simpson used against them? Did they purposely lie on search warrant because they wanted it thrown out? Did they make sure that blood was not seen on the socks until weeks later, only after several experts, on both sides didn't see?

What special treatment was he given where it was later used against them.

It appears to be obvious that celebrities to get special treatment. However, Mr. August, what the detectives saw at Bundy took any shine off Simpson that they may have had. We know Fuhrman hated Simpson, long before the murders. You are assuming that the four lead detectives and all the cops that reported to Bundy that night were card carrying members of OJ Nation.

If Vanhatter and his bosses had been concerned about the integrety of their early investigation they would have removed the known racist furhman from the case.It seems they they did remove him but he refused to leave. as he was intent on being the center piece of the case.

[bobaugust]

Your post states that the only thing that Simpson had in common with Blacks was his race and there was a disassociation because of his lifestyle. If you have ever driven a car to go on vacation, when you return, you don't forget how you got there. Certain landmarks are indelibly implanted in your mind (pun intended).

Does credibility mean anything to you? You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post. Do you think that everyone found credible LE's alleged reason for invading Simpson's home?

The fact that Simpson may remember where he came from has nothing to do with the difference in his adult life style and the life style of the criminal trial jurors. I have never commented on Simpson’s life style or implied anything about it. Your comment that I had is incorrect.

I think any reasonable thinking person who is informed of the events that led up to the decision to enter Simpson’s estate would find the detectives reasons credible.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact that Simpson may remember where he came from has nothing to do with the difference in his adult life style and the life style of the criminal trial jurors. I have never commented on Simpson’s life style or implied anything about it. Your comment that I had is incorrect.

I think any reasonable thinking person who is informed of the events that led up to the decision to enter Simpson’s estate would find the detectives reasons credible.

bobaugust

Does credibility mean anything to you? You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post. And Yes, in fact, you did, when you said after leaving the neighborhood and adopting the new life style he had nothing in common with the jurors but their race.

Two judges thought that LE was not being completely candid.

[bobaugust]

Does credibility mean anything to you? You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post. And Yes, in fact, you did, when you said after leaving the neighborhood and adopting the new life style he had nothing in common with the jurors but their race.

Two judges thought that LE was not being completely candid.

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say I did not mention Nicole’s life style. When I said that Simpson’s life style had nothing in common with the criminal trial jurors I did not say or imply there was anything wrong with Simpson’s life style. And yes credibility does mean something to do me.

I’m not sure which two judges you are referring to but in the criminal trial Judge Ito ruled that all the evidence found at Rockingham was admissible.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say I did not mention Nicole’s life style. When I said that Simpson’s life style had nothing in common with the criminal trial jurors I did not say or imply there was anything wrong with Simpson’s life style. And yes credibility does mean something to do me.

I’m not sure which two judges you are referring to but in the criminal trial Judge Ito ruled that all the evidence found at Rockingham was admissible.

bobaugust

A sigh is just a sigh and a room is just a room and a chair is just a chair, when there is no one there. Somehow you went from this to this.

"Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

"I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle."

Now, you want to deny saying any of it. Does credibility mean anything to you? A sigh is just a sigh.

I never said it wasn't admissible. I said two judges found LE less than candid. A sigh is just a sigh and a room is just a room. And the truth is just the truth, unless someone tells a fib.

[bobaugust]

A sigh is just a sigh and a room is just a room and a chair is just a chair, when there is no one there. Somehow you went from this to this.

"Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

"I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle."

Now, you want to deny saying any of it. Does credibility mean anything to you? A sigh is just a sigh.

I never said it wasn't admissible. I said two judges found LE less than candid. A sigh is just a sigh and a room is just a room. And the truth is just the truth, unless someone tells a fib.

You are very weird (sigh). The only thing I have been responding to was your incorrect comment that I somehow implied that there was something wrong with Simpson’s life style. I have never said or implied that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You are very weird (sigh). The only thing I have been responding to was your incorrect comment that I somehow implied that there was something wrong with Simpson’s life style. I have never said or implied that.

bobaugust

My, my, my, it seems you want to start calling names when you are caught. I guess the truth hurts more than those bug bites. As it relates to this post, blah, blah, blah, and I have proven my point with your words. I no longer care to continue on this bridge to nowhere. Next topic.

[bobaugust]

My, my, my, it seems you want to start calling names when you are caught. I guess the truth hurts more than those bug bites. As it relates to this post, blah, blah, blah, and I have proven my point with your words. I no longer care to continue on this bridge to nowhere. Next topic.

That’s funny, no I wasn’t calling you names, I was commenting on your use of song lyrics in your response. You may not think that is weird but I do. I don’t know what you think I was caught in. Your comment that I had implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s life style was incorrect when you made it and it is still incorrect. I have never said or implied that and nothing you have posted I said contradicts that fact. But I do agree with you, this meaningless discussion has gone on long enough so let’s drop it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That’s funny, no I wasn’t calling you names, I was commenting on your use of song lyrics in your response. You may not think that is weird but I do. I don’t know what you think I was caught in. Your comment that I had implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s life style was incorrect when you made it and it is still incorrect. I have never said or implied that and nothing you have posted I said contradicts that fact. But I do agree with you, this meaningless discussion has gone on long enough so let’s drop it.

bobaugust

You called me weird but that is par for you. This is what your were caught in. You know nothing of the lifestyle of the people, who live in that neighborhood. That means that not every college educated married to White decided to move out of that neighborhood. There are likely affluent people, who chose to remain there for whatever reasons. Therefore, they would have more in common than race. You speak about Ms. Nicole's life style but never mentioned it in your original statement and then talk about what jury consultants said about some Black females. You often speak in stereotypical generalities as if they were fact and then when called on them try to change what you said. That is why I think most of your posts deserve the response of blah, blah, blah. "The closer I get to you, the more you make me see" blah, blah, blah.

[limakey]

Your comment that I have previously implied that there was something wrong with Simpson's chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice is incorrect. I have never posted anything to imply that. I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle.

I may very well have previously said that the way LE treated Simpson before the murders was irrelevant, so what? The special treatment I was referring in my last post was regarding the decision to notify Simpson of his ex wife’s death before he learned about it from the media.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

LE's treatment of Simpson before the murders is very, very, very, very relevant. If they responded to domestic calls, then their testimony was paramount to the DA's motive as well as the Simpsons' relationship.

If they responded just because they knew they could dazzle a friend or other cops, this too is important. As it stands right now, most G's feel that every time a cop went to the Simpson home, it was a domestic violence call.

The reasons the cops gave for going to Simpson's house makes no sense for several reasons. Had they told the truth that they did suspect Simpson and gave the reasons why they went to Rockingham, then that makes sense.

You like to ignore that at least two of the lead detectives knew about prior incidents between the Simpsons. In fact, MF even warned Nicole that her life was in danager. And please, don't even bother with using the excuse that they did not hear it or missed that part of conversation---they were too well trained and experienced not to suspect Simpson.

You also ignore that Vanatter's search warrant leaves Fuhrman's name out of it. He deliberately lied in the warrant and there has to be reasons for this.

[bobaugust]

You called me weird but that is par for you. This is what your were caught in. You know nothing of the lifestyle of the people, who live in that neighborhood. That means that not every college educated married to White decided to move out of that neighborhood. There are likely affluent people, who chose to remain there for whatever reasons. Therefore, they would have more in common than race. You speak about Ms. Nicole's life style but never mentioned it in your original statement and then talk about what jury consultants said about some Black females. You often speak in stereotypical generalities as if they were fact and then when called on them try to change what you said. That is why I think most of your posts deserve the response of blah, blah, blah. "The closer I get to you, the more you make me see" blah, blah, blah.

You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity. But I seriously doubt that any of the criminal trial jurors were multi millionaires or lived the life style of a wealthy celebrity. If you think any of them did then please post something to support that belief.

The fact is that you made an incorrect comment regarding me and I corrected you. But instead of admitting you were mistaken or just dropping the subject you have tried to make it into something other than what it is. When ever you revert to your “blah, blah, blah” response it’s a sure sign that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it. I find it amusing.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I can't find your other post about Hank Goldberg's book and his comments about how he defused Dr. Lee's testimony about how blood got on the socks. However, has it ever occured to you what Dr. Lee was only given photographs of the socks? And why did Goldberg have a picture of the socks with such detail that he could tell that socks were inside out and Dr. Lee didn't?

And did Fung testify to say that they were found inside out? Did any of the state's witnesses testify they were found inside out?

If the size of the stains were so small, then where are the small drops in his bedroom?

Dr. Henry Lee is a legend in this field. He is so skilled that he has solved cases by finding blood where no one else thought to look. He has solved crimes by find tiny bits of evidence--example, the wood chipper murderer.

Dr. Lee was hired because he is the best, the DA's knew this. They knew he would make sure he used the right equipment to test for blood. Dr. Lee was not able to see or handle the socks because they were another weak link in the DA's case, IMO.

[limakey]

You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity. But I seriously doubt that any of the criminal trial jurors were multi millionaires or lived the life style of a wealthy celebrity. If you think any of them did then please post something to support that belief.

The fact is that you made an incorrect comment regarding me and I corrected you. But instead of admitting you were mistaken or just dropping the subject you have tried to make it into something other than what it is. When ever you revert to your “blah, blah, blah” response it’s a sure sign that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it. I find it amusing.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What is the legal definition of "jury of your peers"? Does the word peer mean that Simpson murder trial jury should have been made up famous black people? Th

Also, according to you, the civil trial jury was not a jury of Simpson's peers either. Can't have it both ways, IMO.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Let me try to make this clear for you taking all the emotion out of it. There is a tendency to make too much generalizations about a race from the actions of a few. There is a commonality that all Blacks, whose ancestors were slaves, share. The way they chose to react to that commonality is different. Some try to assimilate to those in power, others reject that assimilation, others try to make no waves, others stir the pot and others seek equality. I think that there are different ways to react to situations, which is common of all races.

I do believe that some Blacks in the neighborhood from, which you refer, to include members of the jury, had White friends. They may not have played golf or they may have but they probably ate, drank and were merry with them. I would not be so bold as to think that I could speak as to any commonality or lack thereof that Whites had. I learned early in life that people are people-some will be your friends, regardless of race, and. some will not, regardless of race. I am not speaking of association but friendship.

There are people, who will hate interracial relationships, and there will be people to whom it will not matter and there will be people that will embrace those engaged in them as people. There are just too many variations of human reactions to limit commonality to race. This is why your statement is somewhat derogatory to Simpson, the jurors, the neighborhoods and to some people, like myself, who tend to see people by the way they treat them.

[limakey]

If Vanhatter and his bosses had been concerned about the integrety of their early investigation they would have removed the known racist furhman from the case.It seems they they did remove him but he refused to leave. as he was intent on being the center piece of the case.


Martin,

IMO, the DA's knew they did not have a strong case. Which is why I belive they used Fuhrman--he was their number one scapegoat, IMO.

[William Anthony]

You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity. But I seriously doubt that any of the criminal trial jurors were multi millionaires or lived the life style of a wealthy celebrity. If you think any of them did then please post something to support that belief.

The fact is that you made an incorrect comment regarding me and I corrected you. But instead of admitting you were mistaken or just dropping the subject you have tried to make it into something other than what it is. When ever you revert to your “blah, blah, blah” response it’s a sure sign that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it. I find it amusing.

bobaugust

I am amused that you want me to justify your statement. You made the initial statement and now you want to call the jury stupid. The blah, blah, blah, means that you are talking loud and saying nothing, if you want me to interpret it for you. I took the time to explain what your statement meant in another post. Now, after reading this, I am sorry I did. Not only will you call me names, you will call others name, who you don't know but make assumptions about simply because they do not see things your way, which you always think is the right way. To that, I say you are saying blah, blah, blah.

[bobaugust]

I am amused that you want me to justify your statement. You made the initial statement and now you want to call the jury stupid. The blah, blah, blah, means that you are talking loud and saying nothing, if you want me to interpret it for you. I took the time to explain what your statement meant in another post. Now, after reading this, I am sorry I did. Not only will you call me names, you will call others name, who you don't know but make assumptions about simply because they do not see things your way, which you always think is the right way. To that, I say you are saying blah, blah, blah.

I didn’t call the jury stupid, I said you may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors had something in common with Simpson; stupidity. Simpson made some very stupid mistakes the night he killed both Ron and Nicole and some of the jurors made some very stupid comments after the verdict.

Your comment that I had previously implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s chosen life style and that Blacks should for some reason fell hostility toward him for that choice was incorrect. That’s all this is about, you and your false comments again you’re arguing just to argue instead of admitting you were mistaken. Next topic.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That’s funny, no I wasn’t calling you names,

You are very weird (sigh)

You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity

I have posted what Simpson’s defense learned from focus groups conducted by their jury consultants as to what feelings and prejudices emerged from Black middle aged women who resented Nicole and her lifestyle.

bobaugust

You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post.
Your prior post, "Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

What, pray tell does posting something eons ago, have to do with your remark about Simpson and the commonality he shared with the jury? I am looking to progress not regress. Your post had to do with Simpson not Ms. Nicole. Your post had to do with jurors from neighborhoods not Black middle aged women.
Does credibility mean anything to you? Does civility mean anything to you. Does anything mean anything to you other than you and proving Simpson guilty at risk of loosing self?

[William Anthony]

I didn’t call the jury stupid, I said you may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors had something in common with Simpson; stupidity. Simpson made some very stupid mistakes the night he killed both Ron and Nicole and some of the jurors made some very stupid comments after the verdict.

Your comment that I had previously implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s chosen life style and that Blacks should for some reason fell hostility toward him for that choice was incorrect. That’s all this is about, you and your false comments again you’re arguing just to argue instead of admitting you were mistaken. Next topic.

bobaugust

I know how this upsets you but it seems your spell checker is deleting things, again. This is your exact comment, You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity. The stupidity is your word and be careful, because some may view your spell checker as stupid. To the rest of your post, blah, blah, blah.

[bobaugust]

You did not mention Ms. Nicole's lifestyle or Black female jurors in your post.
Your prior post, "Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race."

What, pray tell does posting something eons ago, have to do with your remark about Simpson and the commonality he shared with the jury? I am looking to progress not regress. Your post had to do with Simpson not Ms. Nicole. Your post had to do with jurors from neighborhoods not Black middle aged women.
Does credibility mean anything to you? Does civility mean anything to you. Does anything mean anything to you other than you and proving Simpson guilty at risk of loosing self?

Does the fact that I was responding to your incorrect comment mean anything to you? What this is all about is another incorrect claim by you and your refusals to admit you are wrong by talking about everything else but your claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I know how this upsets you but it seems your spell checker is deleting things, again. This is your exact comment, You may be right that some of the criminal trial jurors did have something in common with Simpson other than race; stupidity. The stupidity is your word and be careful, because some may view your spell checker as stupid. To the rest of your post, blah, blah, blah.

No I’m not upset only amused since once again your spell checker remark and your “blah, blah, blah” again makes it clear that you know you are wrong but you just can’t admit it.

Your comment that I had previously implied that there was something wrong with Simpson’s chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice, is incorrect. I never said or implied that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I can't find your other post about Hank Goldberg's book and his comments about how he defused Dr. Lee's testimony about how blood got on the socks. However, has it ever occured to you what Dr. Lee was only given photographs of the socks? And why did Goldberg have a picture of the socks with such detail that he could tell that socks were inside out and Dr. Lee didn't?

And did Fung testify to say that they were found inside out? Did any of the state's witnesses testify they were found inside out?

If the size of the stains were so small, then where are the small drops in his bedroom?

Dr. Henry Lee is a legend in this field. He is so skilled that he has solved cases by finding blood where no one else thought to look. He has solved crimes by find tiny bits of evidence--example, the wood chipper murderer.

Dr. Lee was hired because he is the best, the DA's knew this. They knew he would make sure he used the right equipment to test for blood. Dr. Lee was not able to see or handle the socks because they were another weak link in the DA's case, IMO.

Limakey, Post #6851 page 172

There were no blood stains found in Simpson’s bedroom, that’s another reason why it’s reasonable to believe that he transferred his blood to his sock when he took his socks off.

In my opinion Dr. Lee lost a lot of credibility trying to help the defense with false arguments.

The Prosecution Responds,

“Long before my cross of Lee, I had wanted to find a photograph that could prove the bloody footprints Lee saw on June 25 were not present on June 13, the day after the murders. I wanted to show that the June 25 footprints were left after the crime scene was processed. I spent hours combing through the LAPD crime scene photographs with the help of a young attorney, Jonathan Fairtlough, our computer graphics whiz. Finally, we found close up photographs, taken on June 13, 1994, that depicted the exact same spot on the tiles where Dr. Lee found the bloody parallel-line imprints almost two weeks later. The June 13, 1994 photography clearly showed that he parallel-line imprints Dr. Lee identified on June 25 were not there on June 13, 1994.

When Dr. Lee had completed his first day of direct testimony, the defense clearly wanted to leave the jury with the unmistakable impression that a second set of shoe prints, with parallel line design, was found at the crime scene. He testified to seeing parallel lined imprints in a number of different locations.

First, he identified one on the eyeglass envelope dropped near Ron's feet. Before Lee testified, Bill Bodziak told me that the prints on the envelope were probably fabric impressions from Ron's jeans, a fact Doug Deedrick subsequently confirmed.

Second, Dr. Lee identified another set of parallel line imprints on Ron's jeans. Doug Deedrick later testified that these imprints were probably a fabric impression form Ron's shirt.

Third, Dr. Lee identified the two bloody parallel line imprints in photos he took on June 25. Unbeknownst to Dr. Lee, we had photographic proof that these prints were not present on June 13.

Finally, he identified the parallel line imprint in the June thirteenth LAPD photograph. Dr. Lee did not know that this imprint had been imbedded in the concrete when it was wet. Later, he did admit that it wasn't necessarily a shoe print. In short, Lee was seeing parallel line imprints everywhere.

During my cross examination on the footwear impression evidence, I had Dr. Lee identify more imprints which I knew were imbedded in concrete. Dr. Lee testified about a wiggly or wavy line imprint on one of the photographs. I asked him whether this wiggly line imprint could have been made by blood. Dr. Lee implied that the print could have been made by blood. Dr, Lee implied that the print could have been, saying, "I don't recall exactly... so long ago." Thus, Dr. Lee clearly identified a way line imprint and suggesting that it may have been made by blood. I knew that this imprint was in fact a shoe print. But it was made many years ago, when the concrete walk was freshly poured and the concrete was still wet. It was imbedded in the concrete! During cross examination I showed Dr. Lee more photographs from June 13. He identified an entire series of imprints" on the walkway, which turned out to have been imbedded in the concrete.”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Let me try to make this clear for you taking all the emotion out of it. There is a tendency to make too much generalizations about a race from the actions of a few. There is a commonality that all Blacks, whose ancestors were slaves, share. The way they chose to react to that commonality is different. Some try to assimilate to those in power, others reject that assimilation, others try to make no waves, others stir the pot and others seek equality. I think that there are different ways to react to situations, which is common of all races.

I do believe that some Blacks in the neighborhood from, which you refer, to include members of the jury, had White friends. They may not have played golf or they may have but they probably ate, drank and were merry with them. I would not be so bold as to think that I could speak as to any commonality or lack thereof that Whites had. I learned early in life that people are people-some will be your friends, regardless of race, and. some will not, regardless of race. I am not speaking of association but friendship.

There are people, who will hate interracial relationships, and there will be people to whom it will not matter and there will be people that will embrace those engaged in them as people. There are just too many variations of human reactions to limit commonality to race. This is why your statement is somewhat derogatory to Simpson, the jurors, the neighborhoods and to some people, like myself, who tend to see people by the way they treat them.

The jury is out and they shall decide the credibility of you and your spell checker. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Let me try to make this clear for you taking all the emotion out of it. There is a tendency to make too much generalizations about a race from the actions of a few. There is a commonality that all Blacks, whose ancestors were slaves, share. The way they chose to react to that commonality is different. Some try to assimilate to those in power, others reject that assimilation, others try to make no waves, others stir the pot and others seek equality. I think that there are different ways to react to situations, which is common of all races.

I do believe that some Blacks in the neighborhood from, which you refer, to include members of the jury, had White friends. They may not have played golf or they may have but they probably ate, drank and were merry with them. I would not be so bold as to think that I could speak as to any commonality or lack thereof that Whites had. I learned early in life that people are people-some will be your friends, regardless of race, and. some will not, regardless of race. I am not speaking of association but friendship.

There are people, who will hate interracial relationships, and there will be people to whom it will not matter and there will be people that will embrace those engaged in them as people. There are just too many variations of human reactions to limit commonality to race. This is why your statement is somewhat derogatory to Simpson, the jurors, the neighborhoods and to some people, like myself, who tend to see people by the way they treat them.

The jury is out and they shall decide the credibility of you and your spell checker. ;):cool:

William, you made an incorrect comment attributing something to me that I never said. I responded to that comment and instead of you simply admitting you were mistaken you posted something I had previously said that did not support your claim. And then you just kept expanding the discussion without ever admitting you were mistaken.

The fact is that I have never said or implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice. If you are still incapable of admitting you were simply mistaken when you said that, I understand, so let’s, as you suggested about 17 posts ago, move on to another topic.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, you made an incorrect comment attributing something to me that I never said. I responded to that comment and instead of you simply admitting you were mistaken you posted something I had previously said that did not support your claim. And then you just kept expanding the discussion without ever admitting you were mistaken.

The fact is that I have never said or implied there was something wrong with Simpson’s chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice. If you are still incapable of admitting you were simply mistaken when you said that, I understand, so let’s, as you suggested about 17 posts ago, move on to another topic.

bobaugust

I posted your statements in the order that you made them in consecutive posts and you reverted to name calling. Other than that what you say is blah, blah, blah, imho.

[bobaugust]

I posted your statements in the order that you made them in consecutive posts and you reverted to name calling. Other than that what you say is blah, blah, blah, imho.

You falsely attributed a comment to me that I never said and you once again haven’t the integrity to admit you were wrong. Yes I called you weird when you posted song lyrics in a post. I thought that was very weird.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You falsely attributed a comment to me that I never said and you once again haven’t the integrity to admit you were wrong. Yes I called you weird when you posted song lyrics in a post. I thought that was very weird.

bobaugust

Your words.

"That’s funny, no I wasn’t calling you names," "Yes I called you weird". Does credibility mean anything to you?

[bobaugust]

Your words.

"That’s funny, no I wasn’t calling you names," "Yes I called you weird". Does credibility mean anything to you?

Calling you weird because what you wrote was weird I guess is calling you a name but it wasn’t meant to be nasty or an insult. If you took it that way I apologize. Does credibility mean anything to you when you refuse to admit to something you are wrong about?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Calling you weird because what you wrote was weird I guess is calling you a name but it wasn’t meant to be nasty or an insult. If you took it that way I apologize. Does credibility mean anything to you when you refuse to admit to something you are wrong about?

bobaugust

I accept your apology and now we may be breaking new ground, which I am pleased to see. I think rather than to continue on who is right or wrong we should in the future post to each other civilly and respectfully, forgiving anything that we think each other has said offensively. I truly think we have a chance to set an example. Is there an issue you would like to discuss?

[bobaugust]

I accept your apology and now we may be breaking new ground, which I am pleased to see. I think rather than to continue on who is right or wrong we should in the future post to each other civilly and respectfully, forgiving anything that we think each other has said offensively. I truly think we have a chance to set an example. Is there an issue you would like to discuss?

Sure, let’s see if we can set an example, how about the fact that you attributed something to me that I never said?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Sure, let’s see if we can set an example, how about the fact that you attributed something to me that I never said?

bobaugust

Alrighty then, how about this? I apologize, if you feel that I attributed to you something you that you never said.

[bobaugust]

Alrighty then, how about this? I apologize, if you feel that I attributed to you something you that you never said.

Thank you.

bobaugust

[weezer]

thump -- that was me falling out of my chair!!!!

[tv]

Now I know why I thought I heard the sound of hell freezing over! :eek: :D

[Redmama]

This had tbe a few of the funniest posts I've read in a long time - let's all keep this positive posting up - it is great!!!

[William Anthony]

"Why can't we be friends-why can't we be friends.":)

[William Anthony]

Thank you.

bobaugust

You are very welcome.

[susie31023]

This had tbe a few of the funniest posts I've read in a long time - let's all keep this positive posting up - it is great!!!

I agree Redmama, it has been such a pleasure posting with everyone. I have really noticed the respect we are seeing here even though some of us disagree. Thank yall again. It truly has been interesting and fun ~Suz

[William Anthony]

I agree Redmama, it has been such a pleasure posting with everyone. I have really noticed the respect we are seeing here even though some of us disagree. Thank yall again. It truly has been interesting and fun ~Suz

Let's hope getting along can be contagious.

[susie31023]

Let's hope getting along can be contagious.

Well we can all choose to make it contagious. We just have to remember that when someone says something that makes us angry we all have a choice in how to respond..:biggrin: I know this a very touchy subject and we all have very strong ideas:rose: but if we remember that each of us deserves to have our own opinion and we can disagree without the hate and anger that I have seen here and elsewhere then we will have an excellent board to debate without the hate, hehe;) In my own honest opinion~Suz

Ps..Yall can tell me to shut up if you like, LOL....:biggrin: I don't mind...

[martin II]

Vegas Da tipping fred off to who may have ojs ring. I guess from info he received from his witnesses.


http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/18/2008-10-18_goldman_guns_for_valuable_oj_ring.html

[Redmama]

Well we can all choose to make it contagious. We just have to remember that when someone says something that makes us angry we all have a choice in how to respond..:biggrin: I know this a very touchy subject and we all have very strong ideas:rose: but if we remember that each of us deserves to have our own opinion and we can disagree without the hate and anger that I have seen here and elsewhere then we will have an excellent board to debate without the hate, hehe;) In my own honest opinion~Suz

Ps..Yall can tell me to shut up if you like, LOL....:biggrin: I don't mind...

I'm in!!!!

[weezer]

Vegas Da tipping fred off to who may have ojs ring. I guess from info he received from his witnesses.


http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/18/2008-10-18_goldman_guns_for_valuable_oj_ring.html

we may now know what orenthal wanted arnelle to talk to beardsley about and why beardsley changed his story. :punch:

[Redmama]

we may now know what orenthal wanted arnelle to talk to beardsley about and why beardsley changed his story. :punch:

Can you tell me a little more about this or point me to where I can find the story? It sounds very interesting.

[weezer]

Can you tell me a little more about this or point me to where I can find the story? It sounds very interesting.

I thought this might be the wrong thread for this so I posted links on the '. . .in the news' thread.

[Redmama]

I thought this might be the wrong thread for this so I posted links on the '. . .in the news' thread.

I was just readying - thanks so much.

[martin II]

we may now know what orenthal wanted arnelle to talk to beardsley about and why beardsley changed his story. :punch:

all prosecution witnesses changed their stories.

[weezer]

all prosecution witnesses changed their stories.

shame on you -- you know that's not true. :no:

[martin II]

shame on you -- you know that's not true. :no:

Every prosecution witness that was in the group changed their story or agreed to the prosecuiton story for reduced charges.Every single one.some even lied. Which is why the jury claimed they did not believe any of them.The Fbi experts, after giving a lot of testimony to assist the prosecution had to admit on cross that they could not verify the accuracy of the tapes. So that leaves the detective that was not a voice 'EXPERT' to say
he thinks he assigned the correct name to the person on the tapes based on him interviewing them at previous times.This detective also admitted that he was not able to recover 2-3 of the deleted files and would have no idea as to what they origionally contained.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

shame on you -- you know that's not true. :no:

I have no shame for my post and you should not suggest that i should.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

In regards to you posting what Goldberg said about the socks, the imprints, etc.

Goldberg already knew that Dr. Lee could not tell from the photographs he was given how the socks were found. The fact that he "finally" found a photo of them only asks two questions, why wasn't Dr. Lee allowed to see the socks and what wasn't he provided with the same pictures the DA's had?

In regards to the imprints, both Bodizak and Deedrick said "probably"--however, probably doesn't cut when they had Ron's shirt and jeans to compare the imprints.

Also, Goldberg told the same "finding" story for the blood on the back gate, Fung was presented with a photo the defense had that did not show the blood drop--remember, "where is it Mr. Fung".

It appears to me that not only were certain blood stains found much later in the case, but so were the pictures. IMO, the "finally" finding photographs does not help the DA's at all.

BTW, itsn't it standard procedure for the CSI team to collect the whole stain? If that is the case, then how did Fung manage to get a stain of Ron's blood only months later?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

In regards to you posting what Goldberg said about the socks, the imprints, etc.

Goldberg already knew that Dr. Lee could not tell from the photographs he was given how the socks were found. The fact that he "finally" found a photo of them only asks two questions, why wasn't Dr. Lee allowed to see the socks and what wasn't he provided with the same pictures the DA's had?

In regards to the imprints, both Bodizak and Deedrick said "probably"--however, probably doesn't cut when they had Ron's shirt and jeans to compare the imprints.

Also, Goldberg told the same "finding" story for the blood on the back gate, Fung was presented with a photo the defense had that did not show the blood drop--remember, "where is it Mr. Fung".

It appears to me that not only were certain blood stains found much later in the case, but so were the pictures. IMO, the "finally" finding photographs does not help the DA's at all.

BTW, itsn't it standard procedure for the CSI team to collect the whole stain? If that is the case, then how did Fung manage to get a stain of Ron's blood only months later?

Limakey, Goldberg never said the defense didn’t have first generation photographs of the socks before they were recovered, only that the defense had supplied Dr. Lee second generation photographs.

Regarding the imprints, “probably” is good enough since the imprints on the envelope and on Ron’s jeans were not shoe imprints. There was only one set of shoe imprints left at Bundy on the night of the murders and those were made by size 12 shoes with Silga soles.

No I haven’t forgot Scheck’s loud accusatorial tone that sounded like a schoolyard challenge or taunt, “Where isss ittt, Misterrr Fung?” Earlier in a failed attempt to defuse the June 13 enlarged photograph of the rear gate that clearly showed one of the red stains that was collected on July 3, Scheck had asked Fung to point to the location of a second stain that wasn’t even in the camera’s view.

What photographs do you think were “finally” found? The crime scene photograph showing the bottom of the rear gate had been originally been provided to the defense along with all the other crime scene photographs.

I don’t recall that it was said it was standard procedure for the criminalist to collect the whole stain, if you know of any testimony regarding this post it please, and be sure to include the date. Which blood stain of Ron’s are you talking about?

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The point is, Deedrick or Bodizak saying what it probably was does not cut it because they had the clothes to do a comparison with. It is obvious to me that both both Deedrick and Bodizak conceded that at least two different blood patterns were left on the envelope. Again, what was their proof that it came from Ron's shirt and jeans?

In regards to Goldberg's comments about how he got Dr. Lee to say that the blood could have gotten on the socks when Simpson took them off--he concedes the fact the blood on the socks came from being "pressed on" and not splashed on.

BTW, was the defense's expert, I think it was MacDonald, was he asked the same question that Dr. Lee was? I would think since it was his opinon that the blood was pressed on the sock that he would have been asked the same question.

Also, in reading some material, Judge Ito ruled the FBI was to use a different test that Martz did. Martz used a test where contamination was always issue. Makes no sense. IMO.

Last point, there was no reason why Dr. Lee should have only been able to "examine" the socks was by photographs. He was in LA to review the evidence--no socks. Where were they?

Also, didn't Blaiser get Martz to admit that he had never tested for EDTA before? So how could he be an expert?

[limakey]

I don’t recall that it was said it was standard procedure for the criminalist to collect the whole stain, if you know of any testimony regarding this post it please, and be sure to include the date. Which blood stain of Ron’s are you talking about?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Bundy was a blood bath, it appears that the killer was dripping blood when he left Bundy. It makes no sense that Fung would not have collected the whole sample, especially in such a confined space in the Bronco--he had no way of knowing who's DNA was in that stain or stains. How could he have only collected the parts of the stain that had Nicole's and OJ's blood?

Why did Kestler wish that Fung collected more the stain from the Bronco? Then I believe she goes out and collects the rest of it weeks and weeks later and then presto, Ron's blood is found.

Dr. Lee testified about this.

BTW, why didn't Fuhrman or for that matter Vanatter testify about seeing blood inside the Bronco before they jumped fence? Don't say because they couldn't see---that makes no sense. Fuhrman was able to see blood that he shouldn't have been able to see but doesn't see the blood on the console?

BTW, we only know of 2 witnesses who didn't blood in the Bronco, we have no idea how many others were in the Bronco and also didn't see the blood.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Bundy was a blood bath, it appears that the killer was dripping blood when he left Bundy. It makes no sense that Fung would not have collected the whole sample, especially in such a confined space in the Bronco--he had no way of knowing who's DNA was in that stain or stains. How could he have only collected the parts of the stain that had Nicole's and OJ's blood?

Why did Kestler wish that Fung collected more the stain from the Bronco? Then I believe she goes out and collects the rest of it weeks and weeks later and then presto, Ron's blood is found.

Dr. Lee testified about this.

BTW, why didn't Fuhrman or for that matter Vanatter testify about seeing blood inside the Bronco before they jumped fence? Don't say because they couldn't see---that makes no sense. Fuhrman was able to see blood that he shouldn't have been able to see but doesn't see the blood on the console?

BTW, we only know of 2 witnesses who didn't blood in the Bronco, we have no idea how many others were in the Bronco and also didn't see the blood.

Limakey, yes there was clothing to compare to; Ron’s clothing.

Your comments regarding blood found on Simpson’s socks and in his Bronco do not change the fact that Simpson was bleeding after the murders and left his blood at Bundy, in his Bronco, on his driveway, in his house, and on his socks.

You keep saying Dr. Lee was not able to examine the socks. I do not recall that nor have you posted any testimony to support your belief. Martz was an expert based on the fact that he conducted tests for EDTA that had never been conducted by anyone else at that time.

The fact that Bundy was a “blood bath” is the reason why only represented samples of blood were collected. As to the blood in the Bronco Fung did collect adequate samples of the small blood drops that were splattered around the inside of the Bronco. There were no blood drops on the Bronco center console, only blood stains that were left from Simpson’s attempt to wipe the blood off. Simpson, Nicole, and Ron’s blood were identified in the blood stain samples Fung collected from the center console. Additional blood evidence was found in August 1994 after the passenger seat was removed and the chemical Luminol was sprayed in the Bronco.

None of the detectives saw any blood inside the Bronco before they entered Simpson’s estate because it was still dark outside and the faint bloodstains on the center console were not visible from outside the Bronco. Fuhrman saw some blood stains on the doorsill on the outside of the Bronco which could have been made from the soles of the driver’s shoes.

The witnesses who testified they didn’t see any blood inside the Bronco ever saw the inside of the Bronco until after blood in the Bronco had been collected, after fingerprinting had been conducted, and after photographs had been taken.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Martz was an expert based on the fact that he conducted tests for EDTA that had never been conducted by anyone else at that time.

bobaugust


:):):):)